espinay2

This is a very unfair blame shift particularly when the benefits of free ranging poultry are so well known. I free range some of my poultry but not others (dependant on age, size, breeding program, time of year etc). Certainly there are risks in free ranging. I take precautions as I see fit to protect those birds given known predators. I can not mitigate against occasional 'wild card' intruders without also compromising what I consider to be the welfare of my birds who get great benefit in health and quality of life from free ranging on specific areas of my property. To put the blame on the owner of the poultry for someone elses dog coming onto their property and killing their stock is to blame the victim for the crime because 'they asked for it'. I too feel for the dog owner and agree with millbrook springs that while I consider the farmer well within their rights to shoot the dogs, the correct protocol should have been followed. I do understand the frustrations of the farmer though. Having other peoples animals roam on your property and compromise the welfare of your own animals is also a very stressful, frustrating and heartbreaking thing. The loss of ANY animal is not a positive experience, and to have them die a violent and early death is even less pleasant. As for them being 'just chooks' - as someone who breeds purebred poultry as well as dogs I can tell you that to many many people they are way more than 'just chooks'. If a dog killed some of my birds - who are the product of many hours of planning, multiple generations of careful breeding and selection, sourcing hard to get stock, rearing, observing, handling and yes, even getting to know individual personalities and some that are simply 'more special' - then I would be very very angry and very very upset. In general though - regardless of their supposed 'worth' - no animal should be considered 'just an animal' as a way of lessening the meaning of its existence or the manner of its death.

Pyrenean Mountain Dogs and many other related LGD breeds have 'always' been white. How they came to be white is lost in time though it does appear it was selected for. We are talking about a very old breed. Columella, the Roman agricultural historian, in a work entitled De Re Rustica published in the second century AD writes that "Sheep-herders insist on white guard dogs for their flocks, for otherwise a dog could be struck during an attack through being mistaken for a wolf". The first official standard for the breed was published in France in 1927 (written by fanciers and breeders, including the mountain shepherds who have traditionally bred and used them) although an earlier unofficial standard was published in 1897. Pyreneans made their first appearance in dog shows in France in the 1890's.

This would then I guess lead us to a debate about whether he was in fact 'best' bred ;) i.e. in what context he was considered 'best'. well i haven't his pure bred papers now but i think he was from show champions... hell i was a child who managed to train our first bc to work sheep without any idea.... she seemed to just know.... he seemed to have no clue even with her to show him... it was just too hard... he was a good looking dog, very good looking... ;) but to herd sheep epic fail.... but i guess there is always one fail.... and he could have been the only one of his relatives to hate sheep...and yes it did put me off the idea that pure bred papered dogs are better than farm bred un papered ones... same as you would hope to get a horse from black caviar that knows how to run... you would hope... but its not a guarantee... its just more likely. Sounds like he was from one extreme and one example does not a population make. Yes, there are some dogs of any breed out there that don't work as well. I have had a rescue Pyr that taught me a lot about what I DONT want in the breed. Supposedly a working dog but with absolutely no working instinct at all. A basket case in fact. I have/have had dogs that excel in the show ring that could out perform her by miles as a working dog. I have also heard of show dogs that were as ditzy as but these tend to be in the extreme and are generally not selected for in my breed thank goodness. I am presuming your dog was never bred from? As for Black Caviar, often it isn't the showiest or best performed in a line that produces the best offspring. Sometimes, particularly if they are standouts in a line they don't breed on. And there is much debate over whether Black Caviar is a 'fluke' and will never breed anything as good as herself.

This would then I guess lead us to a debate about whether he was in fact 'best' bred ;) i.e. in what context he was considered 'best'.

While acknowledging there are breeders on both sides that have good looking dogs that are able to work, I find the conversation that's now taking place a bit ironic. We're told the standard is what makes a dog able to do the job for which it's breed yet the argument that seems to be made here is that dogs that meet the standard are unable to work and dogs that are able to work are unable to meet the standard. Frankly I do agree with you Sheridan. I strongly beleive that a good example according to the standard is both a good show dog and a good working dog and that if we look at any breed we will find examples of these types of dogs there already. This is the 'middle ground'. As we have seen here and in other threads before this though, there are those who may have views more towards the outer edges. The trick is to recognise that the two things are not really mutually exclusive and can be found in the same dog. And work with those who have differing views to build a common ground ;)

You may be surprised at the number of breeders that are active in multiple venues already. Certainly a large number of the ones I know are. They don't necessarily compete in all venues at the same time all the time though - often doing it in 'cycles' depending on what stage their dogs are at. They may show to a title for instance, then concentrate more on another field with the dog for a while while either taking a break from showing or just doing the odd show, then may later on campaign the dog in the show ring a bit more. Healthy for the dogs too as they don't go 'sour' doing one thing all the time and healthy for the owners too as they get to take on a variety of challenges. Having 'puppy owners' who do different things with dogs they have bred is also as you say good too and a lot of breeders do love to see that IMO. Dedicated people though do tend to be busy. I see it in dogs, dog sport and dog clubs and associations of varying types, I see it in the livestock and poultry clubs and associations I belong to. Dedicated people with busy lives getting involved in a wide range of venues. All of them with jobs, families and properties to maintain. Not all maintain the same tempo consistently for years and years, but most have fingers in multiple pies to greater or lesser extents at different times.

In my area that actually happens. We have working dog breeders and triallers here - tough farm blokes etc - who run classes and teach on their properties and folks with 'show dogs' who are more than keen to go along to learn and work with their dogs. (BTW, many 'show people' have busy working properties too ;) and you don't move stock every day or even every week - sometimes we don't move them for several months or more). There are plenty of show people out there keen to test and work their dogs if given the opportunty. Look at the ones going along to do HT and herding training and so forth when and where it is offered. Access to stock and someone to teach them is the biggest issue for most. Given the opportunity (and when they are made to feel welcome in a positive manner and encouraged to learn more ) IMO there would be a LOT more out there learning to work with their dogs and seeing how they work with stock. Much better than telling them 'you don't have real working dogs so go away and leave it to the people who have'. Edited to add for those in the Canberra region who are interested in learning sheepwork and want to know who to contact. Taken from here: http://www.crystalle...rderCollies.htm (yes, a 'show persons' page ;) )

Over the years I have had three tortie cats - all with very different personalities from soft and laid back to skittish and somewhere inbetween.

Work WITH them. Work to lessen the divide between work and show. HELP them devise suitable working tests. IMO it is the work is work and show is show and never the twain shall meet attitude that makes the gap wider. BOTH sides have to work together. Don't tell them their dogs are crap because they look pretty but can't work. Look at the strengths they have and then HELP THEM to improve on areas that need improving. IT is about being positive and working towards a goal. Not about saying it can't be done.

Yes, you pick dogs that meet the standard as closely as possible that also display good working instinct to pass on to their progeny. If you choose wisely by using a dog that is prepotent for its working ability there is no reason that the trait would be 'watered down' in all its progeny. You then need to be selective in which puppies you choose to breed on with. Working to achieve a breeding goal is something that is generally achieved in more than one generation of course as any good breeder will know. Given that this thread is a discussion about testing for breed function, perhaps border collie folks such as yourself can tell us? What is a suitable test for border collie breed function that can be utilised by breeders who want to breed dogs that both meet the standard AND have the ability to work at their traditional role? Is the HT a suitable test? We have already discussed how it is possible that tests such as obedience anf agility are perhaps changing what is being selected for in dogs bred for these sports. Rather than be negative and say it cant be done, lets ask the postive question - if a border collie breeder wanted to have it all, how would they test for breed function? I would like to hear your views and the views of other border collie breeders/enthusiasts. But my question is WHY would they want to? When working dogs work better than show dogs? And your livelihood depended on the dogs? Maybe the difference in construction of the working dogs is part of the reason they are better? Lets look at it from the other direction. Why shouldn't people who show be able to breed dogs that are also good working dogs? Wouldn't selecting for dogs who retain sound breed function and working ability be a good thing for people who show their dogs to be doing? I guess I just don't see how breeding a dog that is both 'good looking' and able to perform its job well is something that needs to be mutually exclusive. I was contemplating that point today in between replying too as I drove to and from a sheep breed association AGM and considering it too while we were examining some stud sheep at the property we were on. When I breed a good ewe or ram that is fit for purpose I want it to be structurally sound and 'good looking ' too. Structure and how the sheep conforms to the standard is just as important to its future commercial value and 'worth' as a working animal as any other trait. Personally it is the same thing I look for in my dogs.

apologies - iphone glitch

Yes, you pick dogs that meet the standard as closely as possible that also display good working instinct to pass on to their progeny. If you choose wisely by using a dog that is prepotent for its working ability there is no reason that the trait would be 'watered down' in all its progeny. You then need to be selective in which puppies you choose to breed on with. Working to achieve a breeding goal is something that is generally achieved in more than one generation of course as any good breeder will know. Given that this thread is a discussion about testing for breed function, perhaps border collie folks such as yourself can tell us? What is a suitable test for border collie breed function that can be utilised by breeders who want to breed dogs that both meet the standard AND have the ability to work at their traditional role? Is the HT a suitable test? We have already discussed how it is possible that tests such as obedience anf agility are perhaps changing what is being selected for in dogs bred for these sports. Rather than be negative and say it cant be done, lets ask the postive question - if a border collie breeder wanted to have it all, how would they test for breed function? I would like to hear your views and the views of other border collie breeders/enthusiasts.

Do they need to? I am sure there are those breeders out there, here and overseas, that are breeding dual purpose dogs/dogs that maintain traditional working instinct. Remember too not to look at the extremes. Look in the middle and you often find dogs that combine virtues of both. So the question is here, do people who use their dogs for station work need a Border Collie that maintains traditional breed function? Or do they require a collie type that displays different traits and this is what they have bred for? Read further back in the thread about tests and 'new' working environments contributing to changes in a breed. Maybe if the type of work they are doing is similar to that on the Scottish Borders? Hilly country with light cover? Cold climate? An ability to go to the flock and bring them down from the hills to the shepherd? Thinking out loud here. Fine. No problem with that. As long as they recognise that perhaps what they have done is CHANGED the breed to suit their own requirements.Changes are not just the purview of 'show breeders'

I agree with Weasels in that IMO colour was something that 'went along for the ride' as particular dogs with other particular positive traits were selected for. A popular line, which happens to be a particular colour, then becomes more prolific. Certianly many livestock guardian breeds are white, but many are also not. There is some conjecture that the white dogs were selected for in some places because the sheep in those locations were also predominantly white and the sheep therefore accepted the white dogs a lot easier. This also goes along with the conjecture that a darker coloured herding dog will be respected more by a flock. But these selections are really based on the temperament of the sheep and NOT the dogs as darker coloured livestock guardians with similar traits developed in other locations.

No, separation is caused by those involved in the breed - not kennel clubs They may CURRENTLY find it more difficult but this may not necessarily be due to colour but perhaps to the qualities of the dogs being shown? These things can be 'fashions' too - or the individual likes of particular judges. Some judges don't like heavily marked Pyrs, or mismarked ones but as breeders we understand that these types of likes or dislikes can be limited to a set period of time and don't discount good dogs because of it because a dog is more than its colour. And still show them as we WANT them to be seen out there in the show ring even though at times they may seem to be the odd one out. And at some times some of these types of dogs may be more prolific in the ring than at other times. The more you show them, the more they are seen, the more they become the norm and the more they get accepted. That is simply the way it goes and isn't something confined to 2 tone kelpies. A good question then considering this thread is about DEVISING tests for breed function. Perhaps this is something that can be looked into and changed if enough poodle people are interested and they feel the tests adequately reflect the particular working traits the poodle was designed for (noting that all retrievers are not the same or have the same function). Just because something doesn't currently exist doesn't mean it cant be started. But this is not stopping someone who wants to breed a DUAL PURPOSE Border collie from doing so. If someone wants to breed a good working collie who also has the qualities to meet the standard for the Border Collie in the show ring they can do so. It is only because particular breeders choose NOT to that it is this way, not that it can not be done. I would also note that perhaps current Australian conditions and working requirements are different to those of a TRADITIONAL Border Collie? Perhaps it is that these things have changed working collies here in Australia to be something different rather than maintaining their original breed function and style (of work in the Scottish borders)? Just thinking out loud here. If that is the way you wish to think then that is your own decision. Realise however that by thinking that way you work to maintain and even widen the division and do nothing towards breaching it. If you don't like the division though (which from your other comments it seems you don't? It is perfectly within your power to work towards changing the staus quo as you see it. Rather I commend people for recognising good working traits. This is what we WANT people to do and to work towards maintaining. Not every dog that has those traits will be out there working though and why shouldn't people have 'good looking' dogs that maintain their traditional breed function? What this thread is about is trying to look at ways to RECOGNISE those traits so we can be sure we keep them. A postive thing which I am not sure your post is reflecting? Lets have some positive discussion on how ot do that rather than taking a negative approach. Now we are getting somewhere. I think you are right as for some breeds at least our current social values have changed to a point that devising 'true' working tests would not be socially acceptable. Looking at the breeds and saying 'how can we ensure the features of this breed that made it this breed are maintained' and devising a way of doing that is an interesting task though and one I think all should be looking at. For some it may come from developing a modern day test. As discussed though care needs to be taken to ensure that whatever is devised to 'test' the dogs breed function does not change the dogs breed function to suit the test (as happened with field trial Labradors in the UK). As has been discussed before, many breeds used in their traditional role and also in the show ring do not show great variance overall. This is because breeders have worked to maintain both breed function AND looks (as how the dog 'looks' can be important to its function). It is only in SOME breeds that the divide has been created by breeders and enthusiasts (and interestingly perhaps mostly in breeds where 'working tests' have been developed? Wondering out loud if there is some correlation there?). It really does not pay to generalise. JMHO & YMMV

Having the pleasure of living with dual purpose dogs all my life I have to say there is no need for them to be worlds apart. It may be marked in some Breeds but most certainly not all. To me having a dog that can prove its versatility by being a very successful show dog that also works equally as well is just the way they should be. Many people simply cannot be bothered to do both. Agree with you totally on this one Crisovar. As I have said in discussions before. There is no need for separation. It is the way people think (and what they do with that) that creates the separation. Noting your reference to Labs, Dasha, see my posts above regarding how working tests change dogs too.

Peke :) : http://www.dogzonline.com.au/breeds/profile.asp?dog=43981

A few more photos. Apologies for the quality. (edited as the first photo was mostly Gos d'Atura Catalan and not Berger Pyrenees, who were hiding behind LOL!)

Pyr Shep agility

Pyr sheps are great little dogs. Full on, but can be very shy and standoffish. Have met quite a few of them in France. They can make great little agility dogs. Link for the French breed club: http://www.chiens-des-pyrenees.com/

I agree it is an individual thing. I only concentrate on one dog breed (though have owned others and been involved in them - just not bred them) but I breed several breeds of poultry and also a breed of sheep. These can require the same dedication to understanding bloodlines, showing, breeding responsibly, knowledge of genetics and animal husbandry etc (to breed good examples of their breeds I mean). It does require organisation, good record keeping and plenty of hours of research but I can not see why someone devoted to several dog breeds could not apply themselves in the same fashion if they wanted to. It really comes down to the dedication of the individual in the end and one breed can be too much for some, while for others understanding and dedicating themselves to multiple breeds are not an issue. (as a side note - we expect our judges to be across way more than a few breeds - at least well enough to judge them knowledgably. Then what is the big deal with breeders dedicating themselves to more than one breed?)

Blue Gum Golden Wattle Waratah Banksia Man Gumnut Baby Up there Cazaly (one for AFL fans ;) ) Gold Rush Boil the Billy Avagoodweekend Indian Pacific Ride the Ghan Gone Droving

marine carpet perhaps? You can take it out and hose it.

No problem with doing it as long as it is recognised that it is not a test or example of breed function. And to recognise that by breeding, and selecting as part of that breeding, for dogs that do this, may potentially result in changes to a breed. Well it certainly isn't for my dog sports dog who is a scent hound :laugh: Which is the whole point of the discussion ;) You may 'like' it - but it is in no way testing your breeds function or purpose as a scent hound.

And you know what Espinay - I think that's already happening. The shape, and drive levels is changing and emerging reactivity levels in some "sports dogs" is cause for caution IMO. Personally, I would agree with you there.